Segwit Reading Assignment

Blockchain and Bitcoin 101
#1586

  1. To increase the size of the blocks from 1 MB to 2 MB and that would eventually lead to the same problem as before and not solve the issue itself.

  2. It solved the issue with malleability by removing the signature from the transaction itself which leads to a more secure transaction because you can’t change the signature id or tamper with it.

  3. It paved the way for Lightning network by making it possible for second layer protocols.

  4. No because it’s a soft fork and some wallets/people/services still use the old set of rules.

1 Like
#1587

Its a different currency. But old transactions are also valid on Bitcoin as well.

1 Like
#1588
  1. A proposed alternative to Segwit was a hardfork. To increase the size of the block from 1MB to 2MB.
  2. Segwit not only solved the scaling issue but solved transaction malleability because the signature is not part of the hash anymore.
  3. Segwit and the Lightning network are connected because Segwit supports the development of 2nd layer protocols like Lightning network to build on top.
  4. No, in fact it’s the reason Bitcoin cash was developed as they chose to increase the block size rather than rely on a new transaction structure.
1 Like
#1589
  1. A larger block size.
  2. Solved transaction malleability
  3. Segwit provides better ability for layer 2 transactions which lightning network does. LN provides for settlement when the users are ready.
  4. They are not, they can choose to query larger nodes that have the signatures included if they wish.
1 Like
#1590

  1. An increased block size.

  2. In addition it fixed the issue with malleability.

  3. Segwit made it better for second layer solutions like the Lightning Network or any other second layer solutions that will be developed.

  4. No, they weren’t forced as much as they are encouraged to use Segwit.

1 Like
#1591

Response:

  1. The alternative to Segwit was increasing block sizes
  2. Segwit fixed the tx malleability by removing the signatures to the “outside” of the block. It allowed those to be changed without affecting the tx id.
  3. Lightning Network is a 2nd layer protocol which is allowed because of Segwit.
  4. No, it was not a forced update where everyone was forced to use it.
1 Like
#1592
  1. the proposed alternative to segwit was to increase the block validation size allowed from 1mB to
    2mB.
  2. It also solved the transaction ID being able to be changed by removing the signature from the
    transaction hash. If the signature was changed the actual transaction amount would still be valid and
    could be added to the blockchain and become a valid/confirmed transaction.
    3.The Segwit upgrade allowed a 2 layer protocol to be enabled, Lightning network. The malleability fix
    in Segwit allowed unsigned risk transaction less risky increasing transaction times by using the
    lightning network.
  3. They are not forced but many are embracing this new protocol. This is one of the reasons why
    Bitcoin Cash hardfork was made because they would not accept the new protocol.
1 Like
#1593

Proposed alternative to Segwit was to increase the block size.

Segwit solves transaction malleablity issue.

Segwit supports second layer solutions such as Lightning network.

No, it is still capable with old protocol as it is a soft fork.

2 Likes
#1594

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    Increasing block size

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Transaction malleability

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    They are both 2nd layer solutions on top of the original Bitcoin structure

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No. SegWit is a soft fork implementation

1 Like
#1595
  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    increase the block size.
  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    also solved the malleability problem
  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    the lightning network is asecond layer protocol that became possible with the introduction of segwit
  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    no it was a soft fork so it was backwards compatible.
2 Likes
#1596

  • What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A proposal was to increase the block size, but that would’ve only temporarily solve the problem and introduce other issues over time (e.g., performance, potential for forks, HW requirements,etc).

  • What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    Efficiency and Transaction maleability

  • How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit allowed the development of second layer protocols, such as the lightning network. It also also opened the door to other features like MAST, Schnorr sigs and TumbleBit.

  • Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, since it’s a soft fork but the majority of the nodes are using it.

1 Like
#1597

One would need to do that if he would want to construct a Segwit tx, however old style txs are still valid on Bitcoin :slight_smile:

#1598

You can still make old txs on Bitcoin if you wish, the main reason Bitcoin cash happened is because they increased the block size. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#1599
  1. Extending the block size from 1MB to 2MB. This resulted in a hard fork within the BTC community. Most stayed BTC and went SegWit. Others went to block extension and formed BCash.
  2. SegWit offered several advantages. No new hardware upgrades, fast confirmation times, and the idea of removing the MultiSig from the blocks.
  3. SegWit and Lightning are fundamentally scaling solutions to the 1MB bitcoin dilemma. Both are leaving the blocks themselves and the authentic transaction data in tact (inputs and outputs); however, both are solving how to scale BTC in such a way that the fees stay low, soft forks are possible, and confirmation times remain low.
  4. No one is forced to use BTC or SegWit. It is a decentralized network. If you do not like SegWit, then you did not have to comply with the upgrade. However, if you did agree with the upgrade, then yes, the people, wallets, and exchanges need to upgrade and add SegWit to their services (soft fork).
1 Like
#1600

1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
bigger blocks (4MB)

2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
Transaction malleability (possibility to change the txid)

3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
LN is a 2nd layer solution on top of Bitcoin, this would not be possible without segwit

4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
No, it is not forced upon everybody and compatible with the previous protocol state

1 Like
#1601
  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit? Increasing block size.
  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue? Fixed the transaction malleability issue.
  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected? Lightning network would not be feasible with transaction malleability issue, and together they increase Bitcoin’s tx/sec.
  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit? No, nodes were free to hard fork a different scalability solution (i.e., Bitcoin Cash with increased block size).
1 Like
#1602

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    The alternative is to increase the block size.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    It fixes the transaction malleability bug.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    Segwit supports the development of second layer protocols, such as lightning network. Lightning Network required a transaction malleability fix in the layer 1 blockchain, like Segwit.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    No, because Segwit upgrade is compatible with the previous protocol, a hard fork is not needed and it is not a forced update.

1 Like
#1603

You can also use old style transactions on Bitcoin as well :slight_smile:

#1604

  1. What was a proposed alternative to Segwit?
    A: A proposed alternative to Segwit was the increasing of the block size from 1MB to 2MB.

  2. What did Segwit solve more than just the scaling issue?
    A: Segwit also solved transaction malleability.

  3. How is Segwit and the Lightning network connected?
    A: Segwit allowed for second layer protocols (smaller everyday transactions, for example buying a cup of coffee). Lightning network is one of such second layer protocols. This boosts transaction capacity by moving smaller transactions off chain, and then settling up back on the bitcoin blockchain at a later time.

  4. Are people, wallets and other services forced to use Segwit?
    A: Essentially, no, they are not forced to. Hence the hardfork where bitcoin cash was created. People who do not wish to be involved with Segwit can opt to use bitcoin cash. But, in order to use bitcoin, then yes the protocols that came with the Segwit update are mandatory.

1 Like
#1605

#1.- Alternate proposal for bigger block size led to bitcoin cash
#2.- because of being made malleable this allowed support for second layer.
#3.- the second layer solution made lightning network possible.
#4.- No , old addresses and transactions are still used , but I think they will
eventually .

1 Like